Which brings us to the absurd prevailing myth that white slave owners found their slaves sexually irresistible. Not likely. At the very most, impregnating the female slaves was seen as a disagreeable chore required to breed semi-intelligent and less violent "house ******s."

They must have had to draw straws. What a nasty, horrible job, I can`t even imagine what the smell was like back in the days of little or no bathing. I doubt there was any deoderant around in those times!

Most black in America are mixed with some white, due to slave masters raping black slaves.

Get this through your thick head, anthropoid... SLAVE MASTERS NEVER HAD TO RAPE YOUR UGLY STINKING WOMEN. If anything, it was the other way around. Negresses threw themselves at the white men because becoming a "bed wench" meant clothes, jewelry, better living conditions and a job in the big house. The same thing happens today in every office in America. Black women throw themselves at white men. I've seen it. I guess some level of professional competence and gainful employment is a turn-on for the hoes from da' 'hood.

Some most african american slaves were brutalised. YOu have to understand that slaves were only taken care of to a certain amount. They were fed crappy food, they were always malnourished. They were whipped for just thinking of escape. If a slave was killed because he broke a rule or something they would report that slave as escape thus avoiding legal actions against them. They weren't even considered humans dude. Do you knot understand that? They were treated worse than animals.. I'm not over dramatizing anything your making it seem as if slavery wasn't such a bad deal for the slaves.

By me saying slavery was horrific for african americans is in no way of me saying it wasn't for the poor working class of the industrial age(gilded age). They had a raw deal also. The thing you fail to realise is that the rich had slaves and treated them like **** and the rich owned companies during th eindustrial age and treated its workers like ****. YOu fail to understand how a rich elite tries to keep that status but by saying what you say you kind try to justify why the rich would use harsh methods to make a few bucks.

Your last sentence is a grammactical nightmare. I think you should rephrase.

So was your first senrtence which says "some most. Which did you mean.

Again you generalise on everything. First it was rape now its poor nutrition and briutalisation. All this all that. I can site cases where slaves were treated well. It all depended on a variety of circumstances. You can not say that all were treated poorly, you sir fail to understand that the subject is not one easily summarised by PC quips and broad factless generalisations.
And frankly slavery was not such a bad deal for a number of them, not all, but certainly many were far better off here than slaves in Africa . Many were taught trades, some were house slaves that worked as cooks maids and other domestic chores. These were many times manumitted and were cared for by their family. Why if slavery was so bad and rich masters so cruel that many slaves hid their masters during the terrible slave revolts in Haiti or in South Carolina in 1714. In the slave revolt of 1714 a number of slaves were given freedom for actively helping the authorities and protecting their masters by the colonial governor. If their nmasters were so cruel and their consitions so harsh why did they not join therebel slaves. In fact even the rebel slaves in the 1714 Carolina revolt did not harm one particular slave owner as they knew him to have been kind to his slaves.

Certainly field hands and farm labouers had it far tougher than skilled slaves or domestic servants but you paint with a broad brush making itseem that every slave was brutalised, raped, tortured , staerved etc which was not the case.
Some were but not to the extent you seem to beleave.

Stop using the TV movie Roots as a source and do some objective research " dude"

Get this through your thick head, anthropoid... SLAVE MASTERS NEVER HAD TO RAPE YOUR UGLY STINKING WOMEN. If anything, it was the other way around. Negresses threw themselves at the white men because becoming a "bed wench" meant clothes, jewelry, better living conditions and a job in the big house. The same thing happens today in every office in America. Black women throw themselves at white men. I've seen it. I guess some level of professional competence and gainful employment is a turn-on for the hoes from da' 'hood.

very good point. If you were a slave and became the mistress of " massa" it would definately be to your advantage. I'm sure that was far more common than actual rape. Makes more sense anyway

Some most african american slaves were brutalised. YOu have to understand that slaves were only taken care of to a certain amount. They were fed crappy food, they were always malnourished. They were whipped for just thinking of escape. If a slave was killed because he broke a rule or something they would report that slave as escape thus avoiding legal actions against them. They weren't even considered humans dude. Do you knot understand that? They were treated worse than animals.. I'm not over dramatizing anything your making it seem as if slavery wasn't such a bad deal for the slaves.

You're missing the point. I assure you if you attempt research on your own, or even explore some threads here on the same subject, you will find out for yourself that Negro slaves were not treated any better or any worse than a poor White indentured servant.

Forget about the Gilded Age and the Industrial Era. Compare the Negro slave's lot to his White counterpart in the same era.

Slaves were NOT underfed or poorly cared for. Did you know that a "prime field" slave was valued at $2,000+? This was circa 1830! Many planters took out notes on their homes or their wives' inheritances in order to be able to purchase slaves to help develop their lands.

The problem with the new PC attitude about slavery is that people seem to think the Negroes were somehow singled out and treated very harshly due to racial hatred or something. Nothing could be further from the truth. Life was harder in those times. People--ALL people--had to work hard. If you examine the lifestyle of a TYPICAL plantation farm, you will find that there was not one idle soul on it. Everyone from the land owner down had work of some kind to do.

So you're affronted that Master and Mrs. Master and Young Master and Young Miss weren't in the fields during the same hard work? Sometimes they were. But even if they weren't they had other things to do within the household.

Every Negro I've ever discussed this issue with has the most unrealistic grievances I've ever seen. It's like they think the slaves were entitled to be brought into the big house and given all the advantages and privileges of the families that owned them (the same clothing, diet, education, etc.) And that Whites somehow "wronged" them by not providing this.

These were SLAVES. They were NOT adopted children brought to the US to live a better life. They were brought here to work. I don't know why some people have trouble with this simple understanding.

[quote]
The thing you fail to realise is that the rich had slaves and treated them like **** and the rich owned companies during th eindustrial age and treated its workers like ****. YOu fail to understand how a rich elite tries to keep that status but by saying what you say you kind try to justify why the rich would use harsh methods to make a few bucks.[/quote

or it can be used to breed for specific desirable results. Not to mention, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the mixture can often be far better than the original. No offense.

Perhaps you have some sort of evidence you'd like to share with us revealing that interracial breeding benefits the general public or "builds a better human"?

I wait breathlessly.

Quote:

It is a little funny to hear some of the fanaticism about racial purity around here, considering (at least in America) how much mixing has allready taken place. I don't know about you, but I can usually tell a US caucasian from a European instantly. Having been over there numerous times (Germany and Austria specifically), let me tell you -- there are for the most part prettier girls here. Though again, eye of the beholder. I often wonder if its the mixed up pedigrees so many in the US seem to have -- English/French/Italian, Irish/Russian/Spanish, sometimes with a little black, or native American thrown in.

OK...So you agree the more isolated/purified strains of European are "prettier" but you think interracial breeding will cure diseases and such?

I see what you mean regarding water and soil mixing, but the problem with your example is that we're discussing HUMAN BEINGS. Water and soil do produce mud, but mud cannot be used the way water and soil can seperately.

The same is true about human beings. There is all kinds of evidence that different races have different specialized skills and abilities. If you mix things up too much, those traits are eventually blunted or lost.

Quote:

As far as lions and leopards go, I can't say it'd have a big impact on me to have more leopons than lions or leopards...the same goes with human beings. A person's skin color or hair texture doesn't dictate what sort of impact they'll have on society.

Learn to look past just the skin color and physical features. It's obviously you're a trifle "color struck" but you yourself have said "Africans don't accept American Blacks as REAL Blacks." American Blacks do have a primarily Negro phenotype, do they not? If LOOKS are the only thing that REALLY MATTER, WHY are these Blacks unacceptable?

Think about it.

Quote:

I don't date white men because I have more in common with them...I date them because I like them. Unlike some people, I don't let race become a barrier when I'm choosing a mate.

Sure you're making it a barrier. You've decided you've got a preference for White males, to the point where you even say you intend to marry and have children with a White man. That's a barrier.

It doesn't make you "open-minded" or "open to new ideas". It makes you a traitor to YOUR race and YOUR culture.

Quote:

I admit, I do tend to find white guys more PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE...

I understand.

Do YOU understand that the attractiveness you admire in your White boyfriends CANNOT be duplicated and perserved if you marry and procreate with him? It would be a genetic impossibility.

*waits for the "I don't really care about that..." reply

Quote:

Also, you can't tell me what race I'll be happier with...you don't know me. I'm an American, and like most African Americans, I don't have a "heritage".

Sure I can tell you. This is a forum and I can tell you anything I want.

It is a fact that interracial marriages are generally not as successful as marriages where the partners have more in common.

I only said what I said because I suspect you are of biracial/multiracial heritage and you do not understand that you are a unique race yourself and that, however much you like White men you would likely have more in common with and thus be more comfortable with, a man of your own race.

No one here can tell you who to marry and have children with. You don't need our approval. Your question was "Why do we care about racial perservation when 200+ years ago Whites had slaves?" I've answered your question. If you don't think the reasons are valid reasons, that's your own business. But I promise you, racial tension is getting tenser. Your little multiracial children might have a harder life than you think.

OH...did you "not really care about that" either? As long as you get your White prize, is that all that really matters to you?

Why am I not surprised? Foresight and consideration of future consequences never has been a strong point in your race.

I'm not even going to try to date black girls. You'd have to be careful how you behaved, what you said, so as not to offend them in any way and come off as a racist (in their distorted opinion). They're often really cynical of white guys' intentions and thus hard to approach. Otherwise they assume the role of eccentric, political black rights activists, with loud, in-your-face personalities and wild hairstyles. What am I saying anyway. I'll stick to dating gorgeous white girls, thank you very much!

I hate having to pander my minority friends, but because I'm white I'm obliged to. Seriously, I have to be careful about anything I say, because I like my minority friends, but while they're openly racist (sometimes against whites), I have to keep my mouth shut so as not to alienate their opinion of me.

Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

Quote:

Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.

Quote:

IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.

Personally, I don't care whether you are beautiful or not. I would rather not have my children in special ed. If you must date interracial, choose a 106 IQ Asian so at least you aren't skewing the human race to the dumber end of the gene pool.